Karol Curila MD, MSc, PhD , Jan Mizner MD, PhD , Jan Morava MSc , Radovan Smisek MSc, PhD , Jana Vesela MSc , Ondrej Sussenbek MD , Petr Stros MD , Jindrich Kupec MD , Petr Waldauf MD, PhD , Pavel Leinveber MSc, PhD , Lukas Poviser MSc , Laszlo Nagy MD, PhD , Jan Cerny MSc , Barbora Bitmanova MSc , Pavel Jurak MSc, PhD , Rostislav Polasek MD
{"title":"Prospective randomized trial of conduction system pacing vs right ventricular pacing for patients with atrioventricular block; Prague CSP trial","authors":"Karol Curila MD, MSc, PhD , Jan Mizner MD, PhD , Jan Morava MSc , Radovan Smisek MSc, PhD , Jana Vesela MSc , Ondrej Sussenbek MD , Petr Stros MD , Jindrich Kupec MD , Petr Waldauf MD, PhD , Pavel Leinveber MSc, PhD , Lukas Poviser MSc , Laszlo Nagy MD, PhD , Jan Cerny MSc , Barbora Bitmanova MSc , Pavel Jurak MSc, PhD , Rostislav Polasek MD","doi":"10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Conduction system pacing (CSP) replaces right ventricular pacing (RVP) in bradycardia patients.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare CSP vs RVP in patients with pacemaker indication due to atrioventricular conduction disease.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div><span>This study randomized patients to CSP or RVP in 1:1 ratio and followed them for 12 months. CSP received either His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing; The primary end point was a change in the </span>left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The combined composite clinical end point consisted of cardiovascular death, cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade, or hospitalization for heart failure.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>Of 249 patients, 125 were randomized to RVP and 124 to CSP; there were no differences between clinical parameters. In CSP, 10 patients received His bundle pacing, 96 left bundle branch area pacing, 15 deep septal pacing, and 3 RVP. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were longer in CSP vs RVP (63 vs 40 and 7 vs 3 minutes; </span><em>P <</em> .001). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the LVEF decline in CSP was smaller than RVP (−2% vs −4%, <em>P</em> = .03), and a LVEF decrease ≥ 10% occurred more often in RVP 19 (16%) than CSP 6 (5%), <em>P</em> = .01. There was no difference in the composite clinical outcome between RVP and CSP (9 vs 4, <em>P</em> = .15). There was also no difference in procedural complications (9 in RVP vs 2 in CSP, <em>P</em> = .09).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In patients with severe conduction disease, CSP led to a smaller LVEF decline than RVP after 1 year of pacing. Both pacing methods had similar rates of clinical end points and procedural complications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12886,"journal":{"name":"Heart rhythm","volume":"22 10","pages":"Pages e894-e902"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart rhythm","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1547527125024658","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Conduction system pacing (CSP) replaces right ventricular pacing (RVP) in bradycardia patients.
Objective
To compare CSP vs RVP in patients with pacemaker indication due to atrioventricular conduction disease.
Methods
This study randomized patients to CSP or RVP in 1:1 ratio and followed them for 12 months. CSP received either His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing; The primary end point was a change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The combined composite clinical end point consisted of cardiovascular death, cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade, or hospitalization for heart failure.
Results
Of 249 patients, 125 were randomized to RVP and 124 to CSP; there were no differences between clinical parameters. In CSP, 10 patients received His bundle pacing, 96 left bundle branch area pacing, 15 deep septal pacing, and 3 RVP. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were longer in CSP vs RVP (63 vs 40 and 7 vs 3 minutes; P < .001). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the LVEF decline in CSP was smaller than RVP (−2% vs −4%, P = .03), and a LVEF decrease ≥ 10% occurred more often in RVP 19 (16%) than CSP 6 (5%), P = .01. There was no difference in the composite clinical outcome between RVP and CSP (9 vs 4, P = .15). There was also no difference in procedural complications (9 in RVP vs 2 in CSP, P = .09).
Conclusion
In patients with severe conduction disease, CSP led to a smaller LVEF decline than RVP after 1 year of pacing. Both pacing methods had similar rates of clinical end points and procedural complications.
期刊介绍:
HeartRhythm, the official Journal of the Heart Rhythm Society and the Cardiac Electrophysiology Society, is a unique journal for fundamental discovery and clinical applicability.
HeartRhythm integrates the entire cardiac electrophysiology (EP) community from basic and clinical academic researchers, private practitioners, engineers, allied professionals, industry, and trainees, all of whom are vital and interdependent members of our EP community.
The Heart Rhythm Society is the international leader in science, education, and advocacy for cardiac arrhythmia professionals and patients, and the primary information resource on heart rhythm disorders. Its mission is to improve the care of patients by promoting research, education, and optimal health care policies and standards.